Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
\
It is really, really odd to use the Iraq War as some kind of justification for or distraction from her recent crime.

I think the point of bringing it up was to point out the hypocrisy of getting all rabid over Hillary, but ignoring Bush/Cheney. But you could ask the person who brought it up. Arch?

It's "really, really odd" to you? How long have you been in the LR? It's pretty much automatic that any mention of Hillary/Obama is followed by Bush/Cheney or vice versa!
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the point of bringing it up was to point out the hypocrisy of getting all rabid over Hillary, but ignoring Bush/Cheney.

There's really no hypocrisy involved. (As usual when charges of hypocrisy are leveled.) As windywave has already pointed out, Bush didn't break any laws selling the Iraq War. Just like Clinton didn't break any laws voting for it.


I'd ask Arch if I had any questions about it, but I don't. His tactic here is transparent enough. And yeah, it is odd, even by LR standards. When employing the "but Bush" defense, it's customary to point to something that doesn't equally implicate the Democrat you're attempting to provide cover for. It's like he pulled the pin on a grenade and forgot he was standing in the same elevator as his intended target.









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
Hey, you know who voted for war in Iraq?

Hilary Clinton.

It is really, really odd to use the Iraq War as some kind of justification for or distraction from her recent crime.

I may have missed something - has Hilary been charged with a crime? Usually 'facing justice' follows being charged and convicted of a crime.
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [LorenzoP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Usually 'facing justice' follows being charged and convicted of a crime.

Yeah. Hence the question- will she be charged with her crime?

The consensus and obvious answer is that of course she won't be, and will not face justice.









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:

There's really no hypocrisy involved. (As usual when charges of hypocrisy are leveled.) As windywave has already pointed out, Bush didn't break any laws selling the Iraq War. Just like Clinton didn't break any laws voting for it.


Bush may have broken laws. We don't know. No investigation performed, no charges were filed. The Obama Administration has uniformly declined to investigate or prosecute anything that happened in the Bush Administration.

I probably would have voted for it. I bought the line when Colin Powell brief the UN Security Council, I'm deeply ashamed to admit. Got lied to, bought the lie. But I suspect pretty strongly that somewhere, the line was crossed between "misinterpreting the intelligence" to "outright deception."

Quote:
equally implicate the Democrat you're attempting to provide cover for.

Show me anytime, anywhere I've tried to "provide cover" for Hillary. It's not a zero sum game. Criticizing Bush/Cheney is not the same as endorsing Hillary.
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bush may have broken laws. We don't know. No investigation performed, no charges were filed.

Uh . . . OK. You might be a serial jaywalker. Who's to know?



I probably would have voted for it. I bought the line when Colin Powell brief the UN Security Council, I'm deeply ashamed to admit.

If you bought any of those lies, you should be ashamed, because you were an idiot. None of them were ever convincing in the least. They didn't even rise to the level of pretext.



Show me anytime, anywhere I've tried to "provide cover" for Hillary. It's not a zero sum game. Criticizing Bush/Cheney is not the same as endorsing Hillary.

Pretty sure I was talking about Arch. And while it's not a zero sum game, context matters. When the question at hand is whether or not Hilary will face justice for a crime for which she has basically been caught red handed and exposed without an alibi, and someone responds "but Bush," that person is a partisan hack laying down a smokescreen for Hilary.










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Pretty sure I was talking about Arch. And while it's not a zero sum game, context matters. When the question at hand is whether or not Hilary will face justice for a crime for which she has basically been caught red handed and exposed without an alibi, and someone responds "but Bush," that person is a partisan hack laying down a smokescreen for Hilary.

I think Arch has been pretty clear that that is not what he's doing. In fact, he even wrote this:

Quote:
And here we have an example of why Hillary will never face justice. There are people like this on the Democratic side who will always come up with an excuse or outright denial for Hillary, just like this wingnut will excuse Dubya.


He's failing to cover for Hilary much like I'm failing to exercise at the moment.


-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interestingly, the Bush administration (specifically Cheney and Rumsfeld) pressed the intel agencies to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq, for quite some time after 9/11, and then they "found" some evidence. According to the Frontline documentary, there was a lot of pressure to find evidence that these guys were certain would be there, but most right wingers dismiss that as the intel heads lying to cover their asses.

Nevertheless, we know that what they found wasn't much, and that the intel agencies further suggested that Saddam was unlikely to attack the US, was not an imminent threat, and that if we did attack, that it would dramatically increase the threat............but that intel didn't seem to matter.

I've said this before, if we got exactly the same intel with regard to North Korea, no F'ing way would anyone have supported invading while we were in the middle of a war in Afghanistan and on the hunt for bin Laden. They only managed to pull it off because it was arabs and people are stupid.









-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think that's a rather charitable take on it.

Even on that understanding, it's a terrible analogy. First, for the reason windywave already gave, and secondly, because declining to bring Bush to justice for the Iraq war isn't merely an exercise in partisanship, perpetrated by the Republicans. As I said, the Democrats are equally at fault. Including, specifically, Hilary.

Her case is more analogous to Watergate, really.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interestingly, the Bush administration (specifically Cheney and Rumsfeld) pressed the intel agencies to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq, for quite some time after 9/11, and then they "found" some evidence. According to the Frontline documentary, there was a lot of pressure to find evidence that these guys were certain would be there

Interestingly, that doesn't sound like a crime.










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice? [Rodred] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Saw this on the Yahoo home page.

A Marine and U.S. Naval Academy graduate who self-reported that he improperly stored classified documents will be separated from the Marine Corps Reserve following a decision by Assistant Navy Secretary Juan Garcia

https://pjmedia.com/...classified-documents
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
As I said, the Democrats are equally at fault.

Then you should probably apologize to Arch because that is *exactly* what he said.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Interestingly, that doesn't sound like a crime.

It would depend on what the law says, I suppose. There are laws that prevent you from tricking me into buying something. Tricking me into supporting a war.........yeah, no big deal, I suppose.


-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, it's not. You're either misunderstanding what he wrote, or what I wrote.

He's saying that the Republicans protected Bush and Cheney from justice over Iraq out of partisanship, just as the Democrats are protecting Hilary out of partisanship now. I'm saying "protecting" Bush and Cheney for Iraq- where again, there aren't allegations of a crime anyway- isn't a matter of partisanship, because the Democrats are equally culpable for Iraq.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
.......because the Democrats are equally culpable for Iraq.


I should know better than to chase you down yet another rabbit hole. On second thought, I do know better. Read the thread, follow along, or continue to believe what you want to believe. No one is trying to cover for Hilary, whether you want to accuse them of it or not.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey, man, not my rabbit hole. You got a problem with chasing someone down a rabbit hole, talk to the guy who brought up the Iraq war from 12 years ago in response to a question about the current investigation into Hilary's wrongdoing.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice? [Rodred] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No, she will not. No one cares.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
spot wrote:
I suppose Bush and Cheney were responsible for France, Germany, Australia, Britain, etc, for also believing that Iraq had WMD.


Here we go again.

France/Germany:

On February 24th, 2003, France, Russia, and Germany released a memorandum to the U.N. Security Council in opposition to the immediate commencement of war. The memo contained this text:

While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field.

Australia:

John Howard made the decision based off U.S. intelligence reports and was "embarrassed" by the decision. Australia had, apparently, very little of its own intelligence.

Britain:

The "Chilcot" report is underway, and it's anticipated that it's not going to be kind to Tony Blair.


Basically after 9/11 the U.S. decided it was going to invade Iraq, so we did. There wasn't much evidence of WMDs. Not much at all. And when there *was* very clear of evidence of WMDs, we backed Iraq.

From an article on Slate.com:



"I trusted one German in particular. His name was August Hanning. In the run-up to the war, he was the chief of the BND, the German foreign-intelligence agency. I met him shortly before the war at the new chancellery building opposite the Reichstag in Berlin. He was spectrally thin and exceedingly sober. His briefcase was the size of a microwave oven. I pictured many consequential documents sequestered inside.
Despite his cautious nature, Hanning neither hemmed nor hawed when I raised the subject of Saddam's nuclear program: "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years," he said, on the record and for attribution.
Apart from Kenneth Pollack's book The Threatening Storm, nothing did more to convince me of the national-security necessity of the Iraq war than Hanning's statement. The BND had apparently developed a good deal of information about what was happening inside Iraq, in part because German companies, especially those that manufactured so-called dual-use products—ones that had both civilian and military applications—did disproportionate business in Baghdad. And Hanning seemed particularly credible to me because his analysis so obviously cut against the desires of his bosses. Then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was vociferously opposed to armed intervention in Iraq. Hanning, in other words, was behaving in precisely the manner in which intelligence analysts should behave. He laid out the truth as he saw it, taking no notice of the personal consequences. To Schröder's credit, Hanning was allowed to share his intelligence with the CIA, and by doing so he helped buttress the Anglo-American case for war."

Oh wait, there's more! From the Asian Times:



"In February 2001, the BND compiled a further report and intelligence chief August Hanning told Spiegel magazine that, "Since the end of the UN inspections [December 1998], we have determined a jump in procurement efforts by Iraq," adding that Saddam was rebuilding destroyed weapons facilities "partly based on the German industrial standard".

According to the report:

  • Iraq has resumed its nuclear program and may be capable of producing an atomic bomb in three years;
  • Iraq is developing its Al Samoud and Ababil 100/Al Fatah short-range rockets, which can deliver a 300kg payload 150km. Medium-range rockets capable of carrying a warhead 3,000km could be built by 2005 - far enough to reach Europe;
  • Iraq is capable of manufacturing solid rocket fuel;
  • A Delhi-based company, blacklisted by the German government because of its alleged role in weapons proliferation, has acted as a buyer on Iraq's behalf. Deliveries have been made via Malaysia and Dubai. Indian companies have copied German machine tools down to the smallest detail and such equipment has been installed in numerous chemicals projects. [Note that such Indian cooperation with Iraq is something of a tradition: during the Iran-Iraq war India delivered precursors for warfare agents to Iraq - and later was found to have delivered quantities of the same materials to Iran. Baghdad's middleman at the time, an Iraqi with a German passport, founded a company in Singapore expressly for this purpose.]
  • Since the departure of the UN inspectors, the number of Iraqi sites involved in chemicals production has increased from 20 to 80. Of that total, a quarter could be involved in weapons production.

    The BND's warnings didn't stop with that report. In April 2001, Hanning told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that Iraq was developing a new class of chemical weapons, reiterated his alert on Iraq's missile and nuclear programs, and said that several German companies had continued to deliver to Baghdad components needed for the production of poison gas. In March 2002, he told the New Yorker magazine that, "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years." "


  • This is from a Feb 2003 interview with President Chirac in Time Magazine:

    "But you seem willing to put the onus on inspectors to find arms rather than on Saddam to declare what he's got. Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them."





    ___________________________________________________
    Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    trail wrote:
    vitus979 wrote:

    There's really no hypocrisy involved. (As usual when charges of hypocrisy are leveled.) As windywave has already pointed out, Bush didn't break any laws selling the Iraq War. Just like Clinton didn't break any laws voting for it.



    Bush may have broken laws. We don't know. No investigation performed, no charges were filed. The Obama Administration has uniformly declined to investigate or prosecute anything that happened in the Bush Administration.

    I probably would have voted for it. I bought the line when Colin Powell brief the UN Security Council, I'm deeply ashamed to admit. Got lied to, bought the lie. But I suspect pretty strongly that somewhere, the line was crossed between "misinterpreting the intelligence" to "outright deception."

    Quote:
    equally implicate the Democrat you're attempting to provide cover for.


    Show me anytime, anywhere I've tried to "provide cover" for Hillary. It's not a zero sum game. Criticizing Bush/Cheney is not the same as endorsing Hillary.

    Seriously? There were investigations by at least 1 or 2 Senate committees.

    https://fas.org/...04_rpt/ssci_iraq.pdf
    http://www.gpo.gov/.../CRPT-109srpt331.pdf

    ___________________________________________________
    Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    BarryP wrote:
    Interestingly, the Bush administration (specifically Cheney and Rumsfeld) pressed the intel agencies to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq, for quite some time after 9/11, and then they "found" some evidence. According to the Frontline documentary, there was a lot of pressure to find evidence that these guys were certain would be there, but most right wingers dismiss that as the intel heads lying to cover their asses.

    Of course, there is the alternate explanation that since everyone believed Iraq to be harboring WMD, then finding those supplies and securing them would be of the utmost priority to make sure that they didn't fall into the wrong hands. Also, IIRC, nobody tried to claim that the few chemical warheads they did find represented what was claimed in the pre-war intelligence. It was pretty much immediately reported that what was found was stocks of old artillery shells from probably around the Iran-Iraq war.

    ___________________________________________________
    Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    trail wrote:
    Australia had, apparently, very little of its own intelligence.

    Micro-agressions! I'm offended! What did Australians ever do to you, shoot your moose and put it in their freezer?
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [trail] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    trail wrote:
    vitus979 wrote:

    There's really no hypocrisy involved. (As usual when charges of hypocrisy are leveled.) As windywave has already pointed out, Bush didn't break any laws selling the Iraq War. Just like Clinton didn't break any laws voting for it.



    Bush may have broken laws. We don't know. No investigation performed, no charges were filed. The Obama Administration has uniformly declined to investigate or prosecute anything that happened in the Bush Administration.

    I probably would have voted for it. I bought the line when Colin Powell brief the UN Security Council, I'm deeply ashamed to admit. Got lied to, bought the lie. But I suspect pretty strongly that somewhere, the line was crossed between "misinterpreting the intelligence" to "outright deception."

    And apparently it is happening again. Until we all as voters quit voting in the SDDP (same dumbasses, different party), this is what we are going to get.

    http://www.cnn.com/...bama-isis/index.html
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [spot] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    spot wrote:
    BarryP wrote:
    Interestingly, the Bush administration (specifically Cheney and Rumsfeld) pressed the intel agencies to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq, for quite some time after 9/11, and then they "found" some evidence. According to the Frontline documentary, there was a lot of pressure to find evidence that these guys were certain would be there, but most right wingers dismiss that as the intel heads lying to cover their asses.


    Of course, there is the alternate explanation that since everyone believed Iraq to be harboring WMD, then finding those supplies and securing them would be of the utmost priority to make sure that they didn't fall into the wrong hands. Also, IIRC, nobody tried to claim that the few chemical warheads they did find represented what was claimed in the pre-war intelligence. It was pretty much immediately reported that what was found was stocks of old artillery shells from probably around the Iran-Iraq war.

    The problem with "finding and securing" WMDs is that we pretty much telegraphed Iraq that we were on our way to visit weeks before the first aircraft crossed the Iraqi border. How much time does it take to move weapons that are designed to be portable? How hard is it to figure out that Iraq would move its critical weapons out of Iraq after they did exactly that in the first Gulf war in the 90s? And has anyone questioned how Syria got its chemical weapons that were "discovered" well after we invaded Iraq?

    The US strategy has been and is such a joke that even a teenager could defeat it with nothing more than a Direct TV account because the US has told the media what it want to do and how it wants to do it for decades now. The media then promptly reports that information to the entire world, which if it pays attention, can prepare itself weeks or months before anything happens. Kind of like telling ISIS weeks ago that the US will send 200 advisors to Syria when that has not even been accomplished yet.
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [spot] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    Well, let's listen to what the man himself has to say in the matter:
    "The former Director of Germany’s foreign intelligence service has accused the Bush administration of consciously falsifying intelligence supplied by Germany in order to justify going to war in Iraq. August Hanning, who served as Director of Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (known as BND) from 1998 to 2005, said that the BND had no part in the deception, and that “the responsibility for the war lies solely with the Americans”."

    (source)
    Quote Reply
    Re: Will Hillary ever face justice [malte] [ In reply to ]
    Quote | Reply
    Sounds like a CYA ploy, as there is also this:

    According to Lawrence Wilkerson, a close aide to Powell at the time, the BND "did not just send their information about Curveball as a chance operation. It was carefully considered what they sent to us, each and every word was weighed very carefully." He continues: "I can’t exclude the Germans completely here from their share of guilt."
    Wilkerson is not alone in pointing the finger at Germany. The former US weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay is clear in his criticism of the way the BND handled "Curveball." He says the BND did not make "all the appropriate efforts to validate the source." He also says that, by rejecting CIA requests to be allowed to question "Curveball" directly, German intelligence prevented others from taking over the job of evaluation. "That was dishonest, unprofessional and irresponsible," Kay says.
    In 2004, the CIA officially classified "Curveball" as a "fabricator" -- secret service lingo for liar. The BND, however, has never officially admitted to having been taken in by a fraud. The spy agency still provides cover for "Curveball" and even today refuses to answer questions about their source -- due to “fundamental considerations." Instead, the government refers to a letter sent to then-CIA head George Tenet by then-BND President August Hanning on Dec. 20, 2002. The information provided by "Curveball," Hanning wrote, "was in essence judged as plausible and convincing, but it couldn't be confirmed."

    From: http://www.spiegel.de/...ilures-a-542708.html

    And this from June 2003:
    Hanning warned against jumping to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- still not discovered three months after Saddam's overthrow -- noting that the necessary materials for chemical weapons were imported before the war.
    "These chemicals have still not been found. We are still asking ourselves where these substances are. Before the war there were loads of facts that made us suspicious. This suspicion continues up until today," he said.

    ___________________________________________________
    Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
    Quote Reply

    Prev Next